Does the human species deserve to exist and why?

[EEO]

We've caused so much destruction to both our own species, other life, and the planet. Take whatever analogy you like. Perhaps you like Agent Smith's "humans are a virus" theory. Perhaps you prefer David Attenborough's - humans are like a swarm of locusts. Either way, we may cause our own extinction because of our insatiable consumption and eventual destruction of the resources around us.

[CJCRANE]

1. Yes, everything that exists deserves to exist.

We're all just trying to get by.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. I would have said the exact opposite.

Nothing 'deserves' to exist, it just does.

[darkangel218]

7. I disagree.

Kittens and pups absolutely do deserve to exist.

[Louisiana1976]

16. Yes--they're so cute!

[RKP5637]

53. Kitties and puppies, absolutely! n/t

[enough]

25. Agreed, the word 'deserves' is one of our most distracting, confusing, and deluding words.

The only thing it actually seems to mean is that whatever is should continue to be, which hardly makes sense in the face of reality.

[bhikkhu]

49. "Deserves" implies the right to judge

Which few of us can claim to when it comes to judging individuals, and none of us can claim to when it comes to judging the value of a whole species.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

86. If you're just stating the obvious...

then you're not judging.

[EEO]

69. Survive, Reproduce, and Thrive

[yeoman6987]

55. lol. A little late to be asking a question

Nobody is going anywhere at least for awhile.

[840high]

56. ....

[chervilant]

2. How ironic,

I just posted this on another thread:

I had to get into graduate school to consume such tomes as LaFeber's The American Age, and Hofstadter's Paranoid Style in American Politics. I am aware of how much propaganda we're fed, and how public education has been subverted to stunt our critical thinking skills and turn us into compliant, politically castrated consumers of worthless crap.

The uber wealthy corporate megalomaniacs are bent on absolute hegemony, and nothing short of global revolution will stop them.

I used to despair over the high likelihood that we cannot awaken the Sheeple. I toyed with misanthropy. I've been an activist throughout, up until I saw what the corporates' militarized police did to OWS.

Now, I have relocated to the extremely rural place where I spent my formative years, and I'm immersed in various creative activities that enrich and sustain me. I have an organic garden, and am proximal to a river and several creeks. I consider myself an observer, now, and I suspect I'm witnessing our species' extinction events.

Our species' hedonism is likely our death knell. All those plastic trinkets choking our oceans and landfills, all those nifty pesticides and herbicides poisoning our groundwater, and all those metric tons of oil/coal/nuclear wastes...

I only grieve for our littlies and our once pristine ecosystem. The rest of us have made this bed, and soon we'll die in it.

[AverageJoe90]

9. I feel you, but....

TBH, and I sincerely hope you don't take this the wrong way, but, all this:

I consider myself an observer, now, and I suspect I'm witnessing our species' extinction events.

Our species' hedonism is likely our death knell.

Seems like it's own form of misanthropy. I mean, I hate to say this, but have you looked around at others who are saying this kinda thing? Most of them, from what I've seen, are misanthropes thru and thru(including a few on this very web site). All I'm saying is, be careful about what you believe. Trust me.

[EEO]

70. This question has been asked of me and I have contemplated it for a while.

I think a lot of misanthropy comes from a deep distrust of people and that such a determination is a result of observations. Many tend to see the worst in others.

[pipoman]

3. Self loathing is a mental condition. ..

[conservaphobe]

10. +1

[EEO]

14. So is narcissism.

[JoePhilly]

18. What do you think posting on the internet is?

My thoughts are so important every one should read them.

[EEO]

31. I love the irony.

Good stuff.

[Throd]

27. Actually, the doom and gloom "humans suck" crowd is very narcissistic.

[EEO]

32. Explain.

[Throd]

37. They're smarter than your average ape. They "get" how evil we are.

While the rest of us clueless proles wallow in Coors Light and the TeeVee.

[Chemisse]

42. Nevertheless, it is not narcissistic if it is true.

There are swarms of people on this earth who don't think beyond their next beer or this year's football season. To say that they are clueless about the effect of humanity on the plant is just simply truth. ("No brag; just fact.&quot

[Throd]

44. And billions more without the luxury of first-world navel gazing.

[EEO]

62. Well said.

[Adam051188]

50. bell curves are not evidence of narcissism.

[randr]

4. We will have no say in the final outcome of this proposition

That is unless we decide to.

[AverageJoe90]

6. "Either way, we may cause our own extinction"....I know this may make some feel better, perhaps....

But the truth is, whether or not we may like it, barring a gamma ray burst or K/T event, we will still be here in a hundred years, a thousand, even. We are pretty much here to stay.

[Louisiana1976]

17. +1 million. I wonder what life will be like 100 or 1000 years from now.

[Chemisse]

43. You are an optimist.

There are so many ways that our species could become extinct, it's impossible to even count them all.

It could be as large and dramatic as a comet strike, or as tiny and insidious as a microbe infection.

[AverageJoe90]

46. Nah, I'm just a realist.

And mind you, our species managed to survive even possibly the worst supervolcanic eruption since the age of the Dinos. It knocked us down to about 100,000, maybe half that, from several million individuals, but even our primitive distant ancestors managed to survive that.

A comet strike might actually do it, especially if it's made of rock and not ice, and if it's something on the order of 10-15 miles in diameter, but it wouldn't be the impact that'd kill us; the potentially long-lasting "cometic winter" and plants dying from lack of sunlight would be the factor that did it. No realistic microbe infection I can think of would actually be able to destroy all of humanity, though, unless it was somehow a giga-superbug from space somewhere.....and neither scenario is all likely. In fact, the possibility of either of these events happening is so remote that it practically IS zero, for all intents and purposes.

[jeff47]

74. A comet strike won't be enough.

We'd still be able to grow enough food to keep the species going. Many billions would die, but we could make enough food to keep the species going, even if we had to resort to artificial lighting.

You'd need something like the impact that formed the moon - a planet the size of Mars hit a slightly-smaller-than-now Earth. The impact turned the entire planet into a molten ball, and flung off enough material to create the moon.

Problem there is we'd see something the size of Mars coming a long, long, long time before it got here. Giving us enough time to build a moon or Mars base, causing our species to survive.

[jeff47]

71. Nope.

Microbes will not be able to wipe out our species. A bad enough virus can destroy society, but what ends up happening is we break down into small groups that avoid or ban outsiders. Essentially, we'll quarantine ourselves. Some of those groups will not have the virus, and thus survive. Plus, there are exactly zero cases of 100% deadly microbes.

How 'bout climate change? It'll kill billions as food production falls. That still leaves billions alive, eating what we can produce.

Resource depletion? Let's take oil as an example: Might destroy all cars and cause society to collapse, but plenty of people will be left alive, growing their own food.

How 'bout asteroid/comet strike? If it's "only" as big as the one that killed the dinosaurs, our species will still survive. Billions will die due to lost food production. But just as in the global warming scenario, many will survive.

Pollution? We're really good at making filters. Sure, lots of people would die, but again there'd be plenty that survived to continue the species.

The only way you could eliminate all humans is to kill all of us at once. Otherwise, a few will survive, reproduce, and fill the planet again.

So how about those mechanisms? Gamma-ray burst? No stars close enough for a GRB to be deadly are capable of producing one.

How about really, really big astronomical impact? You'd need an impact similar to the one that created the moon. A planet the size of Mars collided with a slightly-smaller Earth. That one turned the entire surface of the planet into molten lava, thus wiping out all life on Earth - assuming there was some. The big problem here is we'd see something that large a long time before it hit. And we already have the technology to make a permanent moon or Mars base - it's just waaaaaay too expensive at the moment. But price would become unimportant in that scenario.

Even the sun's eventual death won't wipe us out - we already have the tech to keep a small number of us alive on, say, Titan. A few billion years from now when the sun goes red giant and that should be even more feasible.

So what could actually cause humans to go extinct:
-More advanced species decides to wipe us out.

-Heat death of the universe - in about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, the universe will have expanded and cooled enough to no longer have any stars. We won't be able to get through that.

-Two extremely unlikely calamities happen close together in time - a plague destroys society, then a hyper-fast Mars-sized planet appears from nowhere and hits Earth. Really, really, really unlikely.

[Chemisse]

88. Good points.

[RKP5637]

52. I agree! What does bother me is under what conditions, what will life be like. n/t

[oldandhappy]

8. I understand!

There are days I wonder, also.

[elleng]

11. It's a matter of nature,

so whatever exists 'deserves' to exist, and whatever can't/won't sustain itself will perish.

[ZombieHorde]

12. "Does the human species deserve to exist and why?"

No. No one deserves anything. "Deserve" is an abstract concept created by people, and is very useful for persuasion, propaganda, etc. "Deserve" isn't a real thing.

[enough]

26. Thanks. (nt)

[Eleanors38]

101. Definitely a human construct. Like "animal rights."

[TreasonousBastard]

13. We'll cause a lot of other extinctions before we cause ours, but...

it still is an interesting question.

If destruction is the measure of "deserving" then the earth itself doesn't deserve much life, since volcanoes, asteroid strikes and other things caused far more destruction and extinction then we're in the process of. Any day now we might see that nasty thing in Yellowstone blow and it will be all over for the northern hemisphere. And we have nothing to do with it.

But, we are the creatures with free will, and we have the ability to decide whether or not to cause destruction, unlike the randomness of volcanoes or earthquakes.

One could ask if there is some grand design that we are a part of. (With or without religious overtones-- Grand Designs don't require a deity.) If there is such a Grand Design, how do we fit into it, and are our decisions affecting it? Beyond plastic bags in the ocean and melting glaciers, is whatever we are doing making any difference?

Would global change and extinctions take place anyway, as they did in the past, and are we simply the agents of change these days?

In the grand scheme of things, I find the typical bluebird more useful and significant than the typical human, but the typical human more useful and significant than the typical moth. Fortunately, my findings are not used for anything, and remain my own musings.

And the universe rocks on.

[Codeine]

15. Nature doesn't work on the concept of "deserve."

Species exist insofar as they are able to do so. How would one even define "deserve" in that regard?

That we need to manage our ecological impact is an entirely seperate issue.

[Kalidurga]

24. Exactly

Nature does not care how nice we are or what our other merits maybe.

[7wo7rees]

76. "There is no security in nature...

...only opportunity." --Winston Churchill

[Kalidurga]

89. Churchill was a very smart man

Just what England needed in his time.

[WinkyDink]

19. All species, by virtue of BEING species, deserve to exist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Says who?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Heavy/NT

[surrealAmerican]

21. Does it matter?

We do exist. Whether or not we deserve existence is immaterial. Lets just try to make the most of what we have by maximizing the good we can do and minimizing any harm we might cause.

Eventually we will be extinct, just like every other species that ever existed. We can try to push that extinction further into the future, but there is no guarantee we will succeed.

[MoonRiver]

22. I think we are pushing our extinction closer to the present with every carbon emission.

Human beings are truly an abomination and scourge upon the earth. We are a FAILED natural experiment.

[jeff47]

72. Nope.

Climate change will kill billions as food production falls. That still leaves billions eating what we can produce.

Killing, say, 5 billion people is not something to take lightly. But it also leaves 2 billion alive.

[AverageJoe90]

47. "Eventually we will be extinct, just like every other species that ever existed." Maybe, but........

are we so sure of that at the same time? Unlike our very distant ape cousins, we actually became something. We actually built civilization. It is not certain, true, but it is quite possible that humanity may indeed survive until the end of time, or even beyond, perhaps.

[jeff47]

73. We will eventually go extinct.

We won't be able to survive the heat death of the universe.

In about 10^100 years, there will no longer be any stars left in the universe. We won't be able to survive that - we're heterotrophs. We need energy from somewhere.

Though I suppose in 10^100 years we might figure out some way to generate energy from nothing, or explode black holes, or some other technology indistinguishable from magic.

[Crunchy Frog]

105. Do you actually think that our descendants

that far into the future would be even remotely recognizable to contemporary humans?

I day we'll be offed by our own descendants, or by our machine creations.

[jeff47]

107. It's hard to say. Medicine short-circuits a lot of evolution.

In that people don't die as easily from disease, which reduces the pressure to develop resistance.

Economics also short-circuits a lot of evolution, in that the most successful people, measured by economic success, tend to have fewer children. So if there is a genetic component to that success, it isn't going to spread as quickly.

That's not to say we're gonna regress, but I don't know that we will progress in a non-technological manner. We'll become cyborgs, but probably still have two arms, two legs, and be roughly 6 feet tall.

But when it comes to all the stars going out, we either are missing some fundamental parts of physics, or our descendants will be in deep trouble. They've got to get energy from somewhere, and stars are the longest-running source of energy. When they're gone, even almost entirely robotic humans are going to have big problems.

[tabasco]

23. We are stupid, murderous apes.

We are intelligent enough to develop technology, but too stupid to understand the natural world, control our population and co-exist with other species.

[Throd]

28. C'mon, we're not all that bad. We do some beautiful things too.

[RKP5637]

57. We advance technologically, but sociologically not so much. Human minds often exist as

selfish islands, not getting that we are destined to and do, like it or not, live in a highly interactive reality. Each day is a total WTF to me, monstrous and murderous events across the world. Just WTF are humans trying to accomplish. We bring all of our own grief on.

[Wounded Bear]

29. In the immortal words of Will Penny...

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

[AngryAmish]

30. At the most base level we are a sustained chemical reaction

The universe neither likes nor cares if we exist. Our struggles are truly meaningless compared to the large forces in the atom or universe writ large.

As for earth and our fellow humans, as long as North Berwick, Sand Hills, Cypress Point and Cape Kidnappers exist, then we are doing something right.

Look at the 17th of Sand Hills and say humans should not exist.

2d edit: to quote Will Money, deserve got nothin' to do with it. We will exist. Until we won't.

[Iggo]

33. Deserve? No.

We're lucky to be alive.

[ruffburr]

34. NO We are-

Nothing but parasites sucking the life out of the planet and totally deserve extinction , If that sounds harsh let me ask exactly what have we done for this planet in the last 200 yrs ? I see nothing but damage and over use of resources for the profit of the few.

[RKP5637]

59. In essence, life is being drained from the bucket of life in the name of power, greed and profit.n/t

[Aerows]

35. To quote Spock:

"Unclear".

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. I was a du'er before misanthropy was cool. n/t

[hunter]

38. It's a cookbook! We are all an ingredient in the soup.

wikipedia

Like the vast majority of species that have lived on this planet our time will come and go. We are future fossils, an odd layer of trash in the geologic record.

It would be nice to leave descendants, maybe some form of artificial intelligence, maybe some sort of less predatory, less environmentally destructive, more thoughtful variation of human being, but that's not the reason we exist.

I do enjoy some spiritual beliefs, but that's entirely my own choice.

I don't respect beliefs imposed upon me or upon others by force or deception.

Beliefs that do not respect the nature of this world or the nature of humans as mammals will not persist.

If we can't limit our own numbers, if we can't avoid damaging the natural resources that support us, we'll soon experience a population collapse, perhaps extinction. That's the way it's always been here on earth.

[MadrasT]

39. It seems like a pointless question to me.

Yes or no... who cares? Really? If the answer is "yes" what does that even mean? Conversely, if the answer is "no"... well then what does that mean?

Mental masturbation does not entertain me. I find it pointless and frustrating to ask questions that will never have a definitive answer.

[EEO]

41. So you dislike philosophy.

[hobbit709]

40. My theory is that the human race has survived DESPITE itself.

[ladjf]

100. 350,000 years is hardly long enough to make a fair judgment.

Turtles have been here for over 200 million years. Now that's an impressive tenure.

[betsuni]

45. Hey, nonny no!

Men are fools that wish to die!
Is't not fine to dance and sing
When the bells of death do ring?
Is't not fine to swim in wine,
And turn upon the toe,
And sing, Hey, nonny no!
When the winds blow and the seas flow?
Hey, nonny no!

[Adam051188]

48. what gives something the quality of deserving it's existence?

utilizing the abilities it has been given, or developed through evolution, to the best of it's cognitive abilities to preserve and better it's existence and to maintain the stability of whatever factors allow for it's existence.

by this method of deduction i can conclude that i, myself, am not deserving of my existence. I rationalize my laziness, apathy, and hard hardheartedness through comparisons to others of my species behaving in similar manners, regurgitating widely known capitalist propaganda, and defeating myself before i begin large scale tasks by considering the disadvantages faced by a person in the united states not born into a middle class or higher social standing. these are all social factors that i believe are not isolated solely to my own condition.

the conclusion i draw personally is that we are a socially primitive species that is not capable of surviving outside of a social environment. Tarzan isn't real. our minds are very advanced in certain other functions, but our ability to disconnect with the needs of others will be our undoing. plagues spread, even metaphorical plagues.

[RKP5637]

60. Excellent synopsis! >>> "... but our ability to disconnect with the needs of others will be our

undoing." That IMO is pretty much the bottom line. Well said!

[Purveyor]

51. I think it might be time for a 'reset', indeed. Has happened before. eom

[BlindTiresias]

54. Nothing deserves to exist intrinsically

But by our own standards we fall pretty short. Hopefully the AIs that put us to the pasture have more of our good traits and less of our bad.

[chrisa]

58. Humans aren't really like a virus.

A more appropriate comparison would probably be to a parasite (humans) feeding on a host (the earth).

Sadly, humanity isn't smart enough to A - Work together, and B - Avoid the destruction of resources around us.

[treestar]

61. So if we don't, you're going to kill us all?

We exist, whether we "deserve it" in your humble opinion or not.

[EEO]

64. Your question is quite a leap.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

In the end, the only thing that will decide whether we deserve to continue is nature itself. It could be plague, an asteroid, or our own arrogance.

[treestar]

66. IMHO OP is making it into a moral issue

We have damaged the planet and nature, etc., and don't deserve to exist.

IMHO we will continue to exist and will figure out how. Birth control was step one, as we can't keep reproducing naturally because our numbers get bigger and bigger and the planet does not. Though we can get more out of it with technology.

Just because there are right wing deniers of reality does not mean the species does not deserve to exist.

[EEO]

68. “Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis” - Freud

I would say the same of right-wing ideology.

[Union Scribe]

63. If one honestly thinks that humans don't deserve to exist

or that we are a virus et al., why would one be even remotely attracted to any liberal ideology, which revolves around humanitarianism? I could see this kind of loathing for humanity in a conservative, since it fits their actual reckless inhumane policies.

[EEO]

67. I agree. Liberalism is about caring about others and the community. Conservatism is selfish...

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

self-interest at the expense of others. But if I have learned anything the natural world around us is still well beyond our control. And it could decide we are do not deserve to exists, whether it is a plague, an asteroid, or our own nature.

[qazplm]

82. what?

"Nature" is not going to "decide" anything. It's not a conscious entity. It's a word to describe the world that surrounds us.

[Rex]

65. Yes.

Because.

[2naSalit]

75. Even though I care about

others - of all species - I often wonder if humans came to this planet from somewhere (I don't know where) with the intent to destroy it.

Watching how we clearly have no real respect for the biosphere (with each of its individual components) that makes it possible for us to survive here, and for each other I can't help but wonder if we are purposefully ignoring that we need all of the biosphere to survive... our poorly executed environmental/natural resource management plans, until the later part of the last century as proof, seem to have the subconscious malevolence that many openly and proudly tout as the will of a higher source of life/power in the recent past and presently. I can't help but wonder if that might actually be the case and we are in denial because we - well some of us - were working toward a different outcome that was not originally in the the agenda for our species in the first place.

Deserve? Not any more than any other species past or present.

[On the Road]

77. Unless You Have a System Outside Human Existence

for judging whether something is deserved, it's not really a meaningful question.

[BlindTiresias]

78. Extinction would actually be a kind of mercy

What we are likely headed for will be much worse than just extinction: A hugely automated economy that only the rich and their close retinue of specialists actually interact with and a vast army of drones keeping the rest of humanity in ghettos/reservations in check and killing huge swathes of them when they get too uppity.

[liberalmuse]

79. Yes, but we won't be around too much longer.

Human beings are evolving much slower than our ability to make destructive weapons, kill each other and continue to crap in our own cage. If you ask most humans, you won't find many who like themselves or their species. We're just smart enough to know that we're assholes, and if there is a higher intelligence out there, I don't even want to know what they think of us.

[BlueJazz]

80. I wished all of humanity lived just for the fun/pleasure, excitement of living.

Seems like a species close to us (without the Narcissists) could deserve to live.
"Deserve" being used and described by/for this poster. Your mileage may vary.

There could be great happiness in colonization of other systems. (if SOL is found not to be a barrier.)
The excitement of discovering others similar to ourselves...a long shot ..would be complete joy.
Even having the technology of escaping a red-soon-to-expand Sun would bring a sense of accomplishment to those of us left.
"I'll be damn, Roy...we actually made it"

Maybe my question would be: Do some of humans deserve to exist and why.?
And No...I don't/am not sure, of the answer.

[wundermaus]

81. Considering the ELE we are currently entering...

I would say that question is irreverent.
Within this century human life (and all life on this planet) will be extinct.
Have a nice day.

[Lint Head]

83. Is is.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Yes. "Deserve" is a bullshit notion predicated upon a limited set of assumptions, anyway.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

How do we know that the planet earth didn't evolve a technologically advanced species- even with all the concomtiant environmental destruction- because it didn't appreciate being whacked in the face (and the far greater devastation) by asteroids like the one at Chixiclub?

So, yeah- a technologically advanced species capable of space travel and, just maybe, diverting Earth-whacking asteroids.

A space capable species even capable of spreading life (oh no!!!) to other places, because that is what life DOES.

Sure, that's goofy, but no more goofy than asserting that humans don't "deserve" to survive. Good, bad, long term become meaningless in evolutionary terms. The only constant is change.

We are BY FAR the most interesting thing to happen to this planet in a long time.

[EEO]

93. Being "interesting" is a bullshit notion predicated upon a limited set of assumptions.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Well that's just, like, your opinion, man

[sakabatou]

85. Eventually, homo sapiens will go extinct at one point or another

[DetlefK]

87. Your question is anthropocentric, loaded and not answerable.

"Deserving to exist" means that there is some universal morality that can be used for judgements. But nothing like that is known to man.

Does the AIDS-virus deserve to exist?

Does the swarm-stage of locusts, where they just eat and eat and eat, deserve to exist?

Do mosquitoes deserve to exist?


It's just life. It simply is. And if it exists, no matter how or why, then it deserves to exist.

[EEO]

95. If they are fit enough to survive I would say yes, those things deserve to survive.

Nature decides what deserves to survive, not us. It's a race of adaptability and the vast majority of species are destined to lose that race and be wiped out.

[Recursion]

91. No, but nor do blue whales

"Deserving" is not how this works.

[randome]

92. Yes, my daughters deserve to exist.

There. Thought I'd take your conjecture to its most extreme boundary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[MohRokTah]

94. There is no "deserve" to existence.

There is just existence.

[randome]

96. Does Schrodinger's cat deserve to exist?

Yes. And no.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

97. It has nothing to do with deserving anything.

We're just one of the mammal species on the planet. We evolved here and we continue to reproduce. I live here. I was born here. That is why I'm here. I neither deserve nor do not deserve to be here. I'm just here. Posts like this just don't make sense. If you're here, try to do something good with your life. That is all.

[ladjf]

98. The laws of physics will determine our fate. nt

[MineralMan]

99. Well, clearly, you deserve to be here. Everyone else?

Who knows? That is the question you're asking, you know. And from your own, individual human perspective, at that. That you can ask the question means that you're judging all other humans but yourself.

So, what have you done to deserve to be here? And what have I not done? Hint: Asking whether humans deserve to exist does not count.

[cbdo2007]

102. Well everything deserves a chance. But Humans won't be around forever, whether by their own hand

or that of nature. We are as temporary as everything else on Earth.

[TransitJohn]

104. Lol

How deep is your background in classical philosophy?

[ohnoyoudidnt]

106. Yes

We also deserve whatever we get in the future that may very well be caused by our own actions.

[Shankapotomus]

108. We did not originate violence or even environmental destruction

Other species engage in violence and some have been documented as causing the destruction of their own environment.

And although we've perfected both, we are the only species that has members who can counsel the rest of us on how to avoid these pitfalls and override our bad instincts.

Remember we've not only introduced great destruction into the world as a species. We've also introduced great inter species compassion and communication. What other species will go to the lengths we do to care for another species and try to protect their environment?